In a March 10 USA Today piece, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressed
his desire to introduce legislation that would place limits on the Pentagon’s
1033 program which is used to supply police departments with gear that was once
used on the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a long overdue “official”
recognition that something terrible has happened to police departments in the
US. Whether Johnson’s plan has a chance of getting anywhere remains to be seen.
Because there are numerous firmly-stuck perverse incentives that lead to the
state of policing today and which perpetuate it.

People who casually notice the more military-like qualities of American police
would be forgiven for assuming their tactics, weapons, and menacing appearance
are a result of post-9/11 fear. Though September 11 and subsequent scares and
some real incidents such as the Boston Bombing have aggravated this problem
– and there is a similar
equipment grant program that comes from the Department of Homeland Security
that Rep. Johnson should check on – the catalyst for our mutant police is narcotics
prohibition.

Ronald Reagan’s literal drug war began in 1981 with the passage of the
Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Statute (10 USC 371-380).
More loosened restrictions followed that allowed domestic assistance by the
military to police in certain (usually drug) cases. It also set up a system
where police departments could
receive equipment through grants from the federal government. This lead
to bizarre commando-style drug raids that sometimes included military
helicopters, and even U-2 spy planes. (The flimsy accusation
that the Branch Davidian sect had a meth lab was even
the excuse for the presence of the Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other military
hardware during the disastrous 1993 standoff outside Waco, TX.)

Richard Nixon had declared a “war on drugs” in 1971 and pushed some bad policies
– including a DC “no-knock raids” law – with limited success. But the conflict
became the monster we see today under Reagan.
Those years rocketed
the US’s prison population to its current inhumane level of more than 2
million people, and they lead to the normalization of camo-clad cops kicking
in doors over reports of weed or other drugs. The spike in crime in the 1990s
cemented this supposed need for eternally tough on crime measures from police
and politicians. Policies such as mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders
made it clear this was was a serious enough issue to warrant life in prison
for repeat, nonviolent drug dealers.

One risk of the blurred line between cop and solder is what happens with a
declaration of war on anything; war expects casualties and necessitates exceptional
circumstances. It is always a "freebie" that allows ignoring principles
against murder, theft, and trespass. The war on drugs is bad because it is impossible
to win, and because its harmful effects can be seen all over the US. The policy
makers and enforcers declared that the abstract, far-off goal of a drug-free
America was supposed to be worth the price. But this conflict has wrecked the
Fourth Amendment, the Castle Doctrine, and privacy. It has filled prisons
to bursting, and brutalized poor and black communities. It leads to gang violence.
And current policies still encourage police to prioritize narcotics crimes
at the expense of real ones.

In spite of a promising, albeit painfully-slow backlash against anti-drug
hysteria (most notably demonstrated in the legalization of recreational marijuana
in Colorado and Washington state) narcotics are still the motivation for the
100-plus SWAT raids that happen on private homes every day. Normalization of
SWAT’s militarism has even mission crept into
regulatory checks on purveyors
of other “vices. Additionally, civil
asset forfeiture laws allow police to keep a large percentage of cash or
equipment they seize from people affiliated with potential drug drug crimes.
(You need not be convicted or even charged for police to take your cash or property
if they suspect drug connections.)

As Washington Post journalist and blogger Radley Balko told
Antiwar last year, this excess number of drug arrests makes it difficult
for cops to get smart (or safe) when busting people – so instead they hastily
bust down doors. But in the case of an actually violent criminal such as mobster
Whitey Bulger who "was wanted for 19 murders, armed to the teeth, old age…[T]hey
didn’t send a SWAT team. They did their research and found out Bulger rented
a storage unit, and they called him and said someone had broken into the storage
unit. He showed up, and they arrested him without incident. I think it’s telling
that when you have really dangerous people, that cops find creative ways to
arrest them that don’t put police officers and the public at risk."

There are a few exceptions, such as the hunt for the
Boston bomber. There new, tough police tools were used (rather frighteningly
and) successfully to catch an actually violent criminal. So if the war on drugs
was important enough to warrant military surplus being passed out to police
departments the US over, what reasonable person – Rep. Johnson notwithstanding
– could possibly object to their use in the even more vital goal of keeping
Americans safe from terrorists? We were so unforgivably fooled by Reefer Madness.
Most of us will probably keep hoping the local SWAT team can save us from terrorists
as well – if we just turn cops into soldiers.

Lucy Steigerwald is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and a columnist
for VICE.com. She previously worked as an Associate Editor for Reason
magazine. She is most angry about police, prisons, and wars. Steigerwald blogs
at www.thestagblog.com.

I'm very confused by the writer's last paragraph. Was Ms. Steigerwald endorsing the police state tactics used in Boston or not? I read it three times and still don't understand what she was saying?

REED RICHARDS

You should not be confused by the last paragraph. Obviously, this writer, like so many others of her kind, is a true statist, replete with pom-poms and other cheerleader regalia used to cheer on unrestrained state violence against the citizenry. Disregard her musings. She is not to be taken seriously………………..

Jay Hall

All hail, bow down before the police state. Watch Conn gun confiscation closely.

outsider

I know this is off the subject, but please read Stockman's outstanding article that was top-listed. It's great when an articulate former government official sees the light and is not afraid to speak truth to power.

musings

"Real incidents like the Boston Bombing"? I live in Boston. I was in the six city lockdown. I have walked around the alleged site where Forum Restaurant is, and no huge bomb that took off a leg here and there but no arms or faces, and left elaborate building facades, trees and antique streetlights intact every happened. So start with that and then ask – why have a militarized police force except to enforce lies and prevent people from organizing dissent. I heard there were thoughts of drones for the next marathon – to protect us. Get a clue, article writer. You can make up terror and then enforce ever more militarized police tactics.

The police are perfect dupes, as they will believe they are protecting the "good people."

I was on a train in Eastern Europe during communism, in which a young man was arrested with a wad of money for having sold something in Hungary, perhaps some necessity like disposable diapers or toilet paper. Anyway, the patrol which took him off were shuddering over his absolute evil at having made a wad of cash "Capitalist!" they said in horror. "Capitalist!"

I think that when we finally protest our conditions, we will hear the same kind of superstitious horror expressed as they shoot us down. "Conspiracy theorists!"

outsider

I had the same interpretation of the last paragraph you, musings. That's why it shocked me that she thought that what the police did was fine with her although it was "rather frightening." To lock down an entire city to catch one scared teenager who may or may not have been a "violent criminal" sure looks like police overkill to me. "Boston strong" indeed.

lucystag

I knew I should have kept it as "reasonable" instead of reasonable. Or picked a different word.

It was an abrupt tonal shift. I don't blame anyone for interpreting it that way. (Good writing lesson for me.)

REED RICHARDS

Lucy, In addition to supporting the police state crackdown on Boston and surrounding areas, how about proposing some solutions to this problem with the fourth amendment being wiped from the national landscape. Since you have none, I shall propose a few. They are as follows:

REED RICHARDS

1. THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM IS IN CALLING THINGS BY THEIR PROPER NAME WE SHALL REFER TO UNWARRANTED AND ILLEGAL POLICE VIOLENCE POLICE CRIMINALITY VICE POLICE BRUTALITY. 2. NO SWAT RAIDS EXCEPT FOR HOSTAGE SITUATIONS OR ACTUAL SITUATIONS WHERE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROVEN ARMED TO THE TEETH CRIMINALS AT LARGE. 3. SWAT WILL NOT BE USED TO SERVE BENCH WARRANTS OR WARRANTS OF ANY KIND AGAINST NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR THOSE WANTED FOR NON VIOLENT OFFENSES. 4. "NO KNOCK"' RAIDS WILL NO LONGER BE CARRIED OUT, AT ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FOR ANY REASON 5. WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT IN THE PLACES TO BE SEARCHED, SHOTS WILL NOT BE FIRED BY PEACE OFFICERS UNLESS FIRED UPON. 6. MILITARY HARDWARE WILL NO LONGER BE ISSUED TO STATE AND LOCAL PEACE OFFICERS. I am sure that more can be thought of, but this is a short list of immediate REFORMS that need to be implemented to stop the blood-thirsty carnage that is pig with gun and badge criminal behavior……………

One thing you have not mentioned is the civilian control strategies in Israel-Palestine and the connections with US law and penal enforcement policies. What is happening in the US is no accident. Whereas working class people used to produce products in factories, today – with most production outsourced overseas – those same people are THE product and are warehoused in US jails. In this way, the war on whatever (drugs, terror – take your pick) turns people into products of the legal and penal system, out of which state and federal governments pay private corporations and secure their profits. The arms industry also cashes in big time too. It is a new US economic order.

"The war on drugs is bad because it is impossible to win, and because its harmful effects can be seen all over the US world."

There… fixed it.

kkdsoaoiudofio

test

Ssemans

Ironically, there's a silver lining here for those who see the 2nd amendment as a last ditch remedy for a predatory federal government. "Do you really think you can take on the U.S. Army with a militia?" With disgruntled ex-soldiers back from pointless American wars, and mini-arsenals in every U.S city and town, who needs individually armed citizens? All it would take is a friendly local cop with keys to the stash.

Hide Behind

My vision is old but it sure as hell is not blurred; What I see is a military police state that is composed of varying levels of enforcement with lowest order being your local occupation force.
None of our media outlets employees are outside the direct control by the highest powers of the Executive Branch and its all encompassing Bureaucracy rulings .
Every domestic police agency including the red necks ignorance of Thinking a Sherrif has any policing powers, can extend its reach over or beyond what courts allow and are in reality no more than process severs for those courts.
The Courts being no more than officers of Executive Branch's Federal Justice system that is as much a part of National Military as it is domestic police enablers.
Forget the Supreme Court that solf all rights to be seated by interference in Presidential electins and acts as but part of Justifier for All Executive needs.
Department of Hmeland Security is a domestic MilitRy that controls the infrastructure and has as much , actually more, powers to appoint the personel to Fusin Centers which are structured the same as militarys Command Centers.
Command centers for each militarys operational boundarys outside and their US based Centers over arch the domesric regional Fusion Centers.
Hell you now have church charitys being used and paid for under FEMA which is now not Civilian but part of Domestic policeing under DHS.
Lots more and no media bitch can hide what is there for anyone that opens their eyes to see.

Lucy Steigerwald is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and a columnist for VICE.com. She previously worked as an Associate Editor for Reason magazine. She is most angry about police, prisons, and wars. Steigerwald blogs at www.thestagblog.com.